In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by josh358 on August 23, 2012 at 17:06:40:
"I did end it."
And here you are still talking about it. An odd way of ending it.
"So, you think I should have taken the time to find the right version. No doubt you're right. I thought so at the time. I also thought that I was tired and had a million other things to do, and I didn't feel particularly inclined to search for it on You Tube, and that, as I said, the version that came up in Google would make my point."
OK here's the thing. This is the google search for Art Tatum Tea for two. That's what ya did right? A google search.. Take a good look.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Art%20tatum%20tea&cp=21&gs_id=1r&xhr=t&q=Art%20tatum%20tea%20for%20two&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Art+tatum+tea+for+two&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=39ecb6b45886a9c8&biw=914&bih=362
Right below the first youtube link, RIGHT below it is the correct arrangement that is labeled 1933. So you may have been tired, you may have had a million things to do yadda yadda yadda but you didn't *have* to search for anything more than what you already searched for. It was right there.
"You may disagree. That is your right. However, you made a number of inaccurate statements about me, and then called me stupid."
I do find this really ironic. Nowhere did I call *you* stupid. I inferred that some of the content of your posts were stupid. I also went on to say that even smart people will say stupid things from time to time. I have made every effort to discuss the subject not you personally. It is not my fault if you don't see the difference.
"That last is, I believe, what they call an insult, but you'll have to forgive little old stupid me if I got that wrong."
You are forgiven. You did get it wrong.
>>"That" being what? Were you going from memory of the 1933 recording or were you commenting on the content of the youtube video that you had just posted.">>
"If you look in Stereophile c. 2008, you'll find a letter from me in which I critique the anomalies in the otherwise laudable Zenph Tatum and Gould releases. The first track on the Tatum is, you guessed it, the 1933 'Tea For Two.'"
So let me get this straight. Despite being exhausted and with a million things to do you took the trouble to do a google search to find a youtube link to Art Tatum performing Tea for Two. In the google search right below the first link is a second link labelled Art Tatum Tea for Two 1933. You chose to link the first one, the wrong one. Then you chose to comment on "That" but "That" meant the version that you wrote to Stereophile about in 2008. And you did this fully knowing that there were different arrangements by Art Tatum of Tea for Two. That is where the your version of what went down stands? Are there any inaccuracies here? Am I leaving any facts out? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your take on this whole thing
"You are so off base here it is incredible"
Please feel free to correct any errors in fact that I have made here.
and you haven't even touched on the bigger point. that you justified posting the wrong arrangement by saying it still showed that the Yuja Wang performance was "rhythmically wrong"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 18:24:31 08/23/12 (13)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 07:11:40 08/24/12 (12)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 09:02:03 08/24/12 (11)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 09:39:30 08/24/12 (10)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 10:00:30 08/24/12 (9)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 09:04:37 08/25/12 (8)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 11:59:09 08/25/12 (7)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 18:01:35 08/26/12 (6)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 18:52:57 08/26/12 (5)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 07:14:22 09/02/12 (4)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 09:31:46 09/02/12 (3)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 11:21:59 09/02/12 (2)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 13:25:51 09/02/12 (1)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 14:57:48 09/02/12 (0)